View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
Biofuel Expansion: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities
for Rural Poor People
How the poor can benefit from this emerging opportunity
Paper prepared for the Round Table organized during
the Thirty-first session of the IFAD’s Governing Council,
14 February 2008
Prepared by: Vineet Raswant, Nancy Hart and Monica Romano
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect official views or policies of the International Fund for Agricultural Development,
except as explicitly stated.
Food versus fuel: Can the agriculture sector meet biofuel demand without
compromising food security? Farmers might benefit from high commodity prices but
what about net purchasers of food?
Climate change and environment: How effective are biofuels in mitigating climate
change? Are we using the right yardstick to determine the amount of energy required
to produce biofuels in developing countries where farmers are less likely to use nitrogen
fertilizers and practice mechanized farming?
Land use and tenure security: Will the increase in biofuel demand increase land use
competition between food and fuel crops and result in tenure insecurity for small
Impact on poverty alleviation: How does biofuel development affect the food security,
energy needs and employment opportunities of poor rural people?
On 2 January 2008, the cost of crude oil crossed US$100 a barrel for the first time, raising
global concerns. Continuing near-record oil prices, fears of unaffordable and rapidly depleting
sources of fossil fuel and the desire to achieve energy security and mitigate climate change
have combined to heighten interest in biofuel production as a cost-effective, alternative source
Many governments have developed policies meant to promote affordable, alternative energy
sources capable of maintaining current energy consumption standards, supporting further
economic growth and reducing oil dependency. In addition to producing energy from solar,
wind, nuclear and marine sources, the policies also aim at producing biofuels to meet the ever
expanding demand of the transportation sector, mainly bio-ethanol from grains, and bio-diesel
from vegetable oils and animal fat.
In 2006, bio-ethanol production was around 40 billion litres globally with 90 percent
produced in Brazil and the United States, and bio-diesel production was more than 6 billion
litres with 75 percent produced in the EU – mainly in France and Germany. Brazil, the most
competitive producer with the longest history of bio-ethanol production, uses about half its
sugarcane to produce bio-ethanol.
Spurred by many of the same considerations as the developed countries, many developing
countries are now launching biofuel programmes based on agricultural feedstocks: bio-diesel
from palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia as well as from oil-rich, inedible plants such as
jatropha and pongamia in India; and bio-ethanol from sugarcane in Mozambique and in
several Latin American countries, such as Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
Although assessments of the global economic potential of biofuels have just begun, current
biofuel policies could, according to some estimates, lead to a fivefold increase of the share of
biofuels in global transport energy consumption – from just over 1 percent today to 5 to
6 percent by 2020.1 With increasing demand for biofuels, considerable land could be diverted
from food to feedstock production. FAO estimates that the amount of land that would be used
for the development of biofuels – at present about 1 percent of the world’s arable land – could
increase up to 3 percent by 2030 and as much as 20 percent by 2050.
World Bank, World Development Report (WDR) 2008.
Governments have provided substantial support for biofuel development to enable it to
compete with conventional gasoline and diesel. The measures included consumption
incentives (fuel tax reductions), production incentives (reduced taxes and direct subsidies)
and mandatory blending standards. The private sector responded to these incentives, setting
up processing plants for converting crops into energy in a relatively short time. Alarms were
raised when the resulting increased demand for fuel crops contributed to increased
commodity prices with adverse effects on consumers and environmentally sensitive land that
was cleared for planting palm oil. These excesses raised some valid concerns about the impact
of biofuel production on local environments, livelihoods of the displaced people and the
global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The impact of increased food prices, especially on According to FAO, “biofuels accounted for
the fastest-growing market for agricultural
the poor, has drawn considerable attention. Yet, the products around the world and was a billion-
potential for biofuel production to enhance the dollar business. Increasing oil prices in
national energy security for most of the low-income recent years had had devastating effects on
countries that are also net oil importers has had many poor countries, some of which spent
relatively little attention. six times as much on fuel as they did on
health. In that regard, the modern form of
bioenergy could create great opportunity”.
These negatives notwithstanding, as a renewable
energy source, biofuels can help mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on oil in the
transportation sector. They can also have a positive impact on the limited foreign exchange
reserves of many developing countries. When well managed, they also offer large new
markets for higher prices products for agricultural producers that could stimulate rural growth
and farm incomes.
This paper considers the pros and cons of the debate over the potential social, economic and
environmental impact of the increase in biofuel production. It also recognizes that the
developing world has its own set of bio-energy issues, which can be different from those of
the developed world.
1. Food versus fuel – high food prices
Biofuel production has pushed up prices of some food crops, an expected outcome when they
are also used as feedstock. For example the price of maize increased by 23 percent in 2006
and some 60 percent during the past two years, largely because of the U.S. bio-ethanol
program.2 The U.S. is the world’s largest maize exporter and when its biofuel expansion
contributed to a decline in grain stocks, it also, inadvertently, contributed to an increase in
world cereal prices. Similar price increases have occurred for oil crops such as palm, soybean
and rapeseed because of bio-diesel production.
Some food price increases are anticipated but, as with most aspects of biofuel, estimates vary.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) projects maize prices to rise 20
percent by 2010 and 41 percent by 2020, with similar increases for oilseeds (26 percent by
2010, and 76 percent by 2020), and wheat (11 percent by 2010 and 30 percent by 2020).
FAO, on the other hand, projects that prices of coarse grains will increase by 15 percent by
2016, whereas the price of wheat would remain unchanged.
It should be noted, however, that although price increases are blamed on increased biofuel
production, issues such as stock levels, exchange movements and weather, as well as
intangible factors such as speculation also affect price increase in commodities.
Historically, agricultural prices have been affected by energy prices, especially in countries
that employ intensive farming practices, because the increased cost of fossil fuel based inputs,
such as diesel, fertilizers and pesticides eventually lower output. Now, with rising energy
prices and improved bio-energy conversion technologies, energy prices and feedstock prices
are increasingly being linked. These linkages are more readily visible in the more integrated
markets of sugar and bio-ethanol in Brazil but most probably will soon emerge in other
feedstock prices as well.
However, as these markets become linked, the energy prices will place a “ceiling price” on
feedstock prices, because feedstock prices account for more than 70 percent of biofuel costs.
Thus, in order to remain competitive for the energy market, agricultural feedstock prices
cannot rise faster than energy prices, which will limit price increases.
Moreover, the new second-generation technologies currently being developed would lead to
efficient conversion of ligno-cellulosic biomass (from grasses and other biomass) into liquid
and gaseous energy forms. This would allow use of cellulose-rich biomass to be grown on
marginal lands that do not compete with food. It would also make many more species of
plants potential sources of energy.
Impact on the poor.The development of biofuel as a source of energy, when grown on a
large scale, could represent a paradigm shift in agricultural development. As with all shifts,
there will be both winners and losers. Urban and rural landless households, wage-earning
households, rural households that are net purchasers of food and urban consumers are all
expected to suffer as food prices increase.
The general price increase in most commodities has led to some concerns about the impact on
the poor. Usually, as one staple becomes more expensive, people replace it with a cheaper
one. But, if the prices of nearly all staples go up, consumers are left with no alternatives. If
this remains the trend, some nutrition studies show that the number of food-insecure people in
the world would rise by more than 16 million for every percentage increase in the real prices
of staple foods, meaning that 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025 –
600 million more than previously predicted.
However, whether the impact of a rise in food price would be as severe as noted by the
nutrition studies is uncertain. There could be considerable offsetting benefits from
development of biofuels. From the point of view of poor farmers who have dealt with
declining commodity prices for more than 40 years (see Chart 1), increasing food prices
provide an opportunity for increasing benefits and intensifying production which could lead
to increased food output.
Moreover, bio-fuels can also contribute to alleviating poverty through employment creation.
Because biofuel production is labour intensive, there could be significant employment
creation, offsetting the overly negative picture of the food security estimates quoted above. If
mechanisms are introduced to ensure that much of the Biofuel production would add an
increase in prices accrues to the farmers, both biofuel and estimated 9 million jobs in China,
increased food prices can stimulate rural economic growth 1 million jobs in Venezuela by
through additional capital inflows, create demand for goods 2012 and up to 1.1 million jobs in
and services that provide employment, reduce rural-urban Sub-Saharan Africa (S. De Keiser
and H. Hongo, 2005).
migration, and create linkages and multipliers.
This has been observed in Brazil where biofuel production in sugarcane-producing regions
stimulated rather than competed with the other food crops and the income generated through
agro-industrial activities related to sugarcane helped “capitalize” agriculture and improve
conditions for producing other crops.3
2. Climate change and the environment
One of the big selling, but most debated, points of biofuel is its carbon neutrality. This means
that the growing plants absorb carbon and, when harvested, release only the amount of carbon
they absorbed. There is little doubt that most biofuels emit fewer greenhouse gasses than
fossil fuels when used for energy, thus mitigating the effect on climate change.
The debate is over the net carbon savings which means factoring in the amount of fossil-fuel
energy needed to produce the biofuel energy throughout its entire production cycle. At issue
is whether the calculation should include only inputs used directly for growing the feedstock
such as the nitrogen fertilizers or the energy used by farm machinery or if it should include
even the energy used to make the agricultural machinery.
The results will vary, depending on the type of feedstock, cultivation methods, conversion
technologies and energy efficiency.4 Sugarcane-based bio-ethanol saves between 80 and
90 percent of GHG emissions per mile while bio-diesel from soybeans can save 40 percent.5
In general, biofuels from grains have lower performance, reducing carbon emissions by 10
to 30 percent per mile or, in some cases, even producing higher emissions than fossil fuels.6
S. Zarrilli, 2006, “Trade and Sustainable Development Implications of the Emerging Biofuels Market” in
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Linking Trade, Climate Change and
Energy: Selected Issue Briefs www.ictsd.org
P. Hazell, Bioenergy: Opportunities and Challenges, presentation, Sweet Sorghum Consultation, IFAD,
Rome, November 2007.
Energy parameters have been well researched for carbon savings based on agricultural
practices in developed countries, but would it be correct to apply these analyses to developing
countries without further study? Clearly, less use of fertilizer and labour-intensive farming
feedstock production in developing countries is comparatively advantageous from the point of
view of the mitigation agenda. However, the degree of advantage would need to be
substantiated through further analysis.
The labour-intensive biofuel production capability of the developing world’s small farmers
appears to be relatively more environmentally friendly than large-scale, commercial,
monocropping operations in the developed world. Due to, inter alia, low commodity prices,
poor farmers of the developing world have had no funds and few incentives to buy fertilizers
that emit GHGs, and they rarely use mechanized farm equipment that consumes polluting
Expansion of the agricultural frontier. When land is cleared for planting biofuel crops, the
effect can be harmful to the environment, because expansion of biofuel crops can displace
other crops or threaten ecosystem integrity by shifting from biodiverse ecosystems and
farming systems to industrial monocultures. In Brazil, it is feared that future sugarcane
expansion might involve fragile areas. In Indonesia and Malaysia, 14 to 15 million ha of peat
lands have been cleared for the development of oil palm plantations. According to the EU, a
change in land use such as cutting forests or draining peat land can cancel GHG emissions
savings “for decades”.
Measures to control indiscriminate land use changes are underway. The EU is contemplating
a policy proposal to ban imports of biofuels derived from crops grown on forestlands,
wetlands or grasslands. Any country developing bio-fuels policy also needs to consider
similar legislation to address indiscriminate expansion of land.
Soil and water management. Some feedstocks, such as sugar cane, require considerable
quantities of water7 while others such as jatropha require less. In dry areas, the competition
between food and fuel crops may become the overriding issue in the fuels vs food debate and
the issue could be addressed by investing in soil management and water saving technologies,
some of which are uneconomical under present circumstances with declining commodities
prices. Improvement in crop productivity as well as the shift from high water-use bio-fuel
crops (such as sugarcane) to drought-tolerant crops (such as sweet sorghum) are also options
to address the issue of water scarcity.
The processing of energy crops into biofuels also requires water and, though new conversion
plants offer options for controlling water pollution, existing processing facilities can
discharge organically contaminated effluent. All agrochemical runoff and sediments are
problematic, but these problems apply as much to food crops as they do to biofuel crops.
Impact on soil is another environmental concern that, again, is not unique to biofuels. For
rural areas that fertilize with crop wastes and manure rather than external inputs, biomass
production could lead to dramatic declines in soil fertility and structure. But, there are also
exceptions. Biofuel plants such as jatropha and pongamia that grow on marginal lands have
potential to improve soil quality and coverage and reduce erosion while their oilcakes can
provide organic nutrients for improving soil.8 There are many different scenarios and
rigorous lifecycle analysis of potential environmental impacts is needed of different biofuel
production systems to ensure the development of environmentally friendly biofuel
WWF, 2006, Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy, Germany.
S. Kartha, 2006, “Environmental Effects of Bioenergy” in Hazell, P. and Pachauri, R.(eds) Bioenergy
and agriculture: promises and challenges Focus 14, Brief 5, December. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Local-level environment. Amid concerns that biofuel cultivation, refining, combustion and
transport can result in significant environmental problems that are likely to become more
acute as biofuels production and trade expand, there is also belief that biofuel cultivation can
have positive impacts in rural areas where poor people have limited options to meet their
energy needs. Fuelwood is usually their primary household energy source, but its harvesting
is usually unsustainable and can contribute to deforestation. Burning animal dung – another
important energy source – can cause serious health problems. Substituting biofuels for
fuelwood and dung can increase energy efficiency and decrease health risks. At the same
time, biofuel cultivation, if combined with appropriate technologies, can open the door to
sustainable, low-cost, off-grid electricity generation, with the added benefits of reducing
women’s domestic chores and increasing opportunity for rural industry and employment.
3. Land use and tenure security
In reality, biofuels are not different from other cash crops but high demand and rapid
expansion of biofuel production could increase conflict over land rights and utilization.
If land tenure systems are weak, there is risk of appropriation of land by large private entities
interested in the lucrative biofuels markets. The poor, who often farm under difficult
conditions in remote and fragile areas and generally have little negotiating power, may be
tempted to sell their land at low prices or where land is “de jure” owned by the state (typical
in most African countries), find their land allocated to large, outside investors.
Appropriate policies for biofuels should be developed and integrated into a broader strategy
of protecting land rights of the poor and disadvantaged, including Indigenous People, who are
mostly at risk of becoming “bio-fuel refugees”, to ensure that they retain ownership or
usufruct rights to their land. Prioritizing improvement of land policies and land administration
systems will be important to maximize the extent to which poor smallholder farmers can
benefit (particularly those with insecure or customary tenure) or, in some cases, to protect
It should be noted that competition for land uses between food and fuel is not as much an
overriding issue in many developing countries, where land patterns, conditions and uses are
different from those in the developed world.9 Africa’s population density is lower than in
Europe and the U.S., and land use is less a factor in production than the competing use of
Moreover, many developing countries have large areas of land better suited for biofuel
production than for food crops. Marginal and unused lands in developing countries are
suitable for cultivation of biofuel crops that grow under adverse agro-ecological conditions.
India’s Ministry of Rural Development reports that, of the 306 million ha of land, 173 million
ha are under cultivation with the rest classified as eroded farmland or non-arable wasteland.10
A study conducted in the country determined that more than 30 million ha could be used to
produce bio-diesel. Similarly it is claimed that by producing biofuel on 300 000 ha of its
4.6 million ha under crop, Tanzania could “match current fuel imports.”11
While some of the aforementioned claims are perhaps exaggerated and the production from
these areas may be uneconomic unless more productive varieties of suitable crops are
developed, the central point remains that there are other options in pursuing biofuel
R.Slater, 2007, Biofuels, Agriculture and Poverty Reduction, Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
D. Fairless, “Biofuel: The Little Shrub that Could – Maybe”, Nature, October 10, 2007.
S. De Keiser and H. Hongo, 2005, “Farming for Energy for Better Livelihoods in Southern Africa –
FELISA”, Paper presented at the PfA-TaTEDO Policy Dialogue Conference on the Role of Renewable
Energy for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development in Africa, Dar-es-Salaam, 22 June 2005.
development. It is important to develop biofuel policies that avoid land use competition
between food and fuel crops by producing biofuels from non-edible crops such as pongamia
and jatropha that are suitable for degraded lands or from tropical sugar beet that can grow in
alkaline and sodic soils, or by using multi-purpose crops such as sweet sorghum that allow
both food and fuel to be harvested from the same crop.
There are other options to growing bio-fuel crops (other than food crops) and the issue in
many developing countries, especially those that are both net importers of food and fossil
fuel, is not food versus fuel. Instead, the issue is managing limited water and land resources to
promote both food and fuel production.
4. Impact on poverty alleviation
Poverty alleviation and energy provision are linked: availability of local energy is
fundamental to intensifying agriculture and agricultural development is essential to poverty
alleviation. Impact of rural electrification on poverty is best demonstrated by comparing the
stastistics between in India and China (see Chart 2). In this context, FAO notes the
insufficient emphasis on bio-energy as a solution to the needs of the 1.6 billion people who
lack access to electricity and on its potential to improve the lives of the 2.4 billion who use
traditional biomass, which accounts for 90 per cent of energy consumption in poor countries
but is often unhealthy, inefficient and environmentally unsustainable.
Chart 2: Population without access to electricity, selected countries
Two thirds of the low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) for which data exist are also
energy-deficit, with 25 of the 47 poorest countries totally dependent on imported fuels, again
showing the impact of energy (or lack thereof) on poverty. These countries use much of their
available funds to import oil with little left to support economic growth. Oil-importing poor
countries have been hit hardest by soaring oil prices that are worsening their balance of
payments. Biofuels development can improve foreign exchange reserves of most of these
countries, either by substituting for imports of oil or by generating revenues through biofuel
exports. Eitherway, it would contribute to the economic development of many of foreign-
exchange strapped economies of many developing countries.
Biofuels provide an opportunity for developing countries to enhance national energy security
by reducing their expenditures and dependence on oil imports and exposure to the volatility of
international oil prices. Brazil initiated its biofuel
It is estimated that global biofuel
programme when oil prices increased in the late
production could expand from 50 billion
1970s, primarily because it could not afford the high litres to more than 250 billion litres by
cost. The initial programme cost about US$4 billion 2025, offering tremendous opportunity
and required sustained government subsidies, but they for the poor to participate in this vast
have since been removed. Today, the programme has global market. (Prakash, 2007).
resulted in savings of more than US$100 billion and
made Brazil the world’s largest exporter of bio-ethanol.
Biofuel production can be especially beneficial to poor producers, particularly in remote areas
that are far from the consumption centres, where inputs are more expensive and prices lower,
making food production, by and large, noncompetitive. In addition, agro-climatic conditions
usually do not favour increasing the intensity of cropping systems. The challenge of providing
poor rural people with meaningful income-generating opportunities remains largely
unaddressed. Seeking solutions, projects often support niche products (apiculture, medicinal
and aromatic plants, etc.), but these products usually have limited demand, long marketing
chains and low producer prices.
Many of these farmers can benefit from the production of biofuels, especially from crops that
do not compete with production of food crops (such as jatropha and pongamia) or multiple-
use, low water-usage crops (such as sweet sorghum and cassava) that can meet the varied
needs of small producers for food, cash income and animal feed. Other biofuel crops, such as
tropical sugar beet, are as efficient as sugar cane in producing bio-ethanol but require far less
water and, most importantly, can grow in alkaline or sodic soils that are basically unsuitable
for food crop production.
POLICIES AND ISSUES IN SMALLHOLDER BIOFUEL DEVELOPMENT
Biofuel offers small farmers development opportunity…
While biofuels offer a potential source of renewable energy and large new markets for
agricultural produce, the issue is how to meet the energy and food needs of developing
countries, many of which are both net food and fuel importers and suffer from acute shortages
of foreign exchange. Agricultural policy encouraging growth of biomass in marginal rather
than prime agricultural areas would serve the dual purpose of meeting national energy and
food needs. It would also require: (a) improving both food and energy crops to ensure that the
plants selected for production in remote areas have the productivity to be competitive: and (b)
investing in soil and water conservation practices and infrastructure to ensure competitive
development of biofuels. Such policies should also aim to develop an active rural energy
policy as this would provide the basis for intensifying agriculture and with it, food security.
One challenge is to design and implement policy measures to ensure that the growing use of
bio-energy is conducive to reducing poverty and hunger and, thus, that “bio-energy becomes
pro-poor”. This will be the case if the production is labour intensive, the processing
technology for provision of local energy is simple and there is promotion of public-private
sector partnerships when producing for national or international markets.
Economies of scale are necessary for farmers and developing countries to take advantage of
biofuel opportunity. Yet, small-scale farmers face obstacles in accessing supply chains,
transporting crops to processing plants or selling through middlemen and policy measures
would be required to ensure that small farmers are part of the national drive to promote
Existing institutions also have a crucial role in making bio-energy pro-poor. Cooperatives or
producer companies, for instance, can bundle the interests of the poor, accumulate and attract
capital and partnerships for the necessary investments, organize feedstock supplies in large
quantities and, in turn, create a countervailing power to the larger firms operating in the
… but not without risks
Loss of access to land. The sheer speed of biofuel expansion may generate new pressures on
land tenure arrangements, leading to alienation. There is considerable fear that the poor may
either sell or be forced to relocate as the rush to meet increasing demand gathers momentum.
As biofuel development is taking place rapidly, this issue needs to be addressed as a matter of
urgency – to move beyond debate and advise farmers and governments of the opportunities
and risks associated with biofuel production.
Unfair business practices. Smallholder farmers and rural people engaged in supplying private
companies with raw materials for biofuel processing often lack legal recourse in the event of
reneged contracts. Pro-poor organizations are needed that can provide countervailing power
to the affluent companies involved in up-stream processing and distribution.
Environmental risks. Agricultural practices that are not environmentally friendly could lead to
soil degradation and depletion of natural resources. Policies promoting sustainable farming
activities, such as conservation agriculture, can protect the natural resource endowments of
the poor and avoid bad practices such as deforestation that would increase GHG emissions.
The relative advantage of reducing GHG emissions following less intensive farming indicates
that incentives need to be provided to developing countries, especially poor farmers, to
encourage them to mitigate the effect of climate change.
Natural risks. Farmers involved in biofuel production are subject to the effects of extreme
weather situations such as droughts or floods. These are natural risks and, as with all other
crops, measures need to be considered to mitigate their effects through insurance
Advent of new technologies. As new second-generation technologies are developed, first-
generation technologies may become non competitive. This is a normal business risk and, as
with any other product, measures should be considered to ensure that value chains have the
means and resources to adapt to emerging opportunities.
Decrease in price of fossil fuel. There is some risk that the price of fossil fuels could decline,
rendering biofuels non competitive, although experts generally agree that with rising demand
and depleting reserves, there is little probability of this occurring.
Paradigm shift could create losers. It is important for the donor community and governments
to ameliorate the impact as biofuel production gathers momentum.
Gender-differentiated risks. As it often occurs due to pre-existing gender inequalities, there is
risk that women benefit less than men. Bio-fuel development policies should be consistent
with the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment, to ensure that women
engage in, and benefit from, this emerging opportunity.
Energy markets are much larger than the food markets. The emerging markets for biofuels
offer an unparalled opportunity to benefit the poor on a large scale through agriculture. While
there are some risks, the key question is: Are they so insurmountable to deprive many of the
poor from taking advantage of this opportunity to improve their livelihoods? In this context, is
it time to move beyond the “food vs Fuel” debate and not view it as just another trade-off.
WHAT IS IFAD DOING TO ENSURE PRO-POOR BIOFUEL DEVELOPMENT?
IFAD’s new Strategic Framework (2007-2010) recognizes biofuel as an emerging market
opportunity for the poor, especially those living in remote areas where almost 70 percent of
IFAD’s projects are located. In these areas, food production is challenging because the areas
are remote from the consumption centres, inputs are more expensive and prices lower, making
food production for commercial purposes, by and large, non competitive. In addition,
agroclimatic conditions do not favour increasing cropping system intensity, and the challenge
of providing meaningful income-generating opportunities for people remains largely
IFAD has financed, inter alia, two research grants to address these issues and enable poor
rural people to take advantage of the huge market demand for biofuel production and meet
their varied needs, while expanding employment and income-generating opportunities.
The first grant, which was approved by the Executive Board in September 2007 is being
implemented by ICRISAT and other partners, focuses on biofuel crops, such as jatropha,
pongamia, sweet sorghum and cassava, that can grow under adverse agro-ecological
conditions that prevail in remote areas. It explores the potential for improving plant
productivity and integrating these crops into smallholder farming systems. The grant will also
study the economics of rural electrification and assess its impact on poverty. The second
grant, which is being implemented in partnership with the Asian Development Bank, will
identify strategies for developing biofuel crops to benefit rural poor households in the
A third research grant will link smallholder farmers to agro-industrial processors in
Cambodia, the Lao PDR and Viet Nam, using feedstock crops, such as cassava. This will be
presented to the April 2008 Executive Board.
Other efforts to explore pro-poor options for biofuel development include: (a) establishment
of private sector links to promote biofuel crops of special relevance to the poor living in areas
affected by salinity and (b) global consultations organized in partnership with UN
Foundation, FAO and ICRISAT to guide the research programme.
Other planned activities will focus on building partnerships with bi-lateral and multi-lateral
donors and research institutions to mainstream biofuel development, and working closely
with other International Land Coalition (ILC) members and other UN agencies to address
land issues that might arise as biofuel development gains momentum. IFAD is also in the
process of finalizing a corporate land policy and developing operational guidelines that can
help guide the integration of activities aimed at strengthening land tenure security of its target
group into new grant and loan projects and programmes
Abassian, A., 2007, Food Security with Biofuels? An FAO Perspective, presentation made at
the Governing Council of the Common Fund for Commodities.
Clark, G., “EU Comissioner [sic] Rejects UK Government Report on Biofuels”, in Biofuel
Review, 22 January 2008, www.biofuelreview.com/content/view/1425/
De Keiser, S., and Hongo, H., 2005, Farming for Energy for Better Livelihoods in Southern
Africa – FELISA, presented at the PfA-TaTEDO Policy Dialogue Conference on the Role of
Renewable Energy for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development in Africa, Dar-es-
Salaam, 22 June 2005.
Fairless, D., “Biofuel: The Little Shrub that Could – Maybe”, Nature, October 10, 2007.
FAO Press Conference on Sustainable Energy Report, Rome, May 2007.
Hazell, P., Bioenergy: Opportunities and Challenges, presentation made for the Sweet
Sorghum Consultation at IFAD, Rome, November 2007.
Kanter, J., “EU Considers Banning the Import of Certain Fuel Crops”, in International Herald
Tribune, 14 January 2008.
Kartha, S., 2006, ‘Environmental Effects of Bioenergy’ in Hazell P. and Pachauri R. (eds)
Bioenergy and agriculture: promises and challenges, Focus 14, Brief 5 of 12, Washington,
Lazarus, M., et al., Renewables to Support Rural Development and Climate Mitigation,
Stockholm Environment Institute, October 2000, Vol. 13, No. 3.
Naylor, R.L., et al., “The Ripple Effect. Biofuels, Food Security and the Environment”, in
Environment, Volume 49, No. 9, November 2007.
OECD and FAO, 2007, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016, Paris.
Prakash, A., 2007, Grains for food and fuel – at what price?, Intergovernmental Group on
Grains and Rice, meeting, Istanbul, Turkey.
Runge, C., et al., “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor”, in Foreign Affairs, Volume 86,
Issue 3, 1 May 2007.
Sagar, A.D., et al., “Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?” in Recommend, July 2007,
Schmidhuber, J., 2006, Impact of an Increased Biomass Use on Agricultural Markets, Prices
and Food Security: A Longer-term Perspective, paper prepared for the International
Symposium of Notre Europe, Paris.
Slater, R. et al, 2007, Biofuels, Agriculture and Poverty Reduction, Overseas Development
Von Braun, J., The World Food Situation: New Driving Forces and Required Actions,
prepared for the IFPRI’s Biannual Overview of the World Food Situation presented to the
CGIAR Annual General Meeting, Beijing, December 4, 2007.
World Bank, 2007, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development,
WWF, 2006, Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy, Germany.
Zarrilli, S., 2006, “Trade and Sustainable Development Implications of the Emerging Biofuels
Market” in International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Linking Trade,
Climate Change and Energy: Selected Issue Briefs www.ictsd.org